<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Way behind on this list.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I’ll throw in a related issue I’ve talked about with a few people (including Tom) on the FIWG about:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I have a vendor that installed the Shib SP to support SAML federation for a UC app. That vendor has stated that going forward they think it is too hard to support
Shib, and is developing their own SP solution. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">My sense is that the vendor has a mix of concern about (a) complexity of install and maintenance and (b) relying on an external entity to provide what they
see as a core application capability. I’ve tried to make the argument that this is short sided and gave a number of examples (including some of the FIWG discussion and referencing saml2int, and comparing it to developing a local implementation of openssl)
but don’t think I’m having much sway (and I don’t have much contractual leverage either).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In any case, I mention it here because I don’t know if there are any other vendors that have raised the concern about how much they can rely on the Shib SP
for commercial support. This may be something valuable to consider in the Shib consortium or in the TIER packaging workgroups; a focus to help lower the bar (technical and otherwise) for vendors (and not just higher ed institutions) to select Shib (or other
full featured SAML SP solutions) rather than custom developed ones. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--- Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> users [mailto:users-bounces@shibboleth.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>IAM David Bantz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 18, 2015 4:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Shib Users<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: SSO comparison request from executive management<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Tom. I will include a reference to the software recommendation (just Shibb and SimpleSAMLphp).<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Tom Scavo <<a href="mailto:trscavo@gmail.com" target="_blank">trscavo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:24 PM, IAM David Bantz <<a href="mailto:dabantz@alaska.edu">dabantz@alaska.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> As I feared, vendor messages maligning Shibboleth as an outdated solution<br>
> that is a nightmare to manage have triggered the following request from my<br>
> executive management:<br>
><br>
>> David,<br>
>> I continue to get messages (primarily from Ping) about options to Shib.<br>
>> Do you have time to do a quick comparison (functionality and cost) of Shib,<br>
>> Ping and other vendors that should be on our radar for UA?<br>
><br>
> I've replied briefly indicating why I regard the statements about Shibboleth<br>
> as false, but I'm pleading again for a strong well-grounded response to this<br>
> request.<br>
<br>
The InCommon Federation Interoperability Working Group [1] chaired by<br>
Walter Hoehn from the University of Memphis, is in the final stages of<br>
preparing a SAML V2.0 Implementation Profile for Federation<br>
Interoperability (linked on the WG home page). I imagine you could use<br>
this document to compare the functionality of Shibboleth and<br>
PingFederate, but total cost of ownership is another matter, I'm not<br>
sure how to measure that in each case.<br>
<br>
There is also the SAML Software Guidelines [2] published by InCommon.<br>
In order for PingFederate (or any implementation) to be mentioned on<br>
that page, it would have to correctly consume InCommon metadata. Apart<br>
from the implementations already mentioned on that page, I don't know<br>
of any software that does that.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps,<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/ioRRBQ" target="_blank">https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/ioRRBQ</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/R4HPAg" target="_blank">https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/R4HPAg</a><br>
<span class="hoenzb"><span style="color:#888888">--</span></span><span style="color:#888888"><br>
<span class="hoenzb">To unsubscribe from this list send an email to <a href="mailto:users-unsubscribe@shibboleth.net">
users-unsubscribe@shibboleth.net</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>